Delhi High Court: In a case wherein the issue raised before this Court was that in case an accused was acquitted of the charges tried against him, however, on acquittal, he had to furnish personal bond with surety bond as per Section 437-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), the Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ., noted that though Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was taking care of this issue pending before this Court and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was under consideration before the Select Committee and were already put up before Parliament, the Court opined that it might take some time for the Criminal Laws to be modified, therefore, in the meanwhile, the trial courts were directed that in cases relating to Section 437-A of the CrPC, the word “shall” must be read as “may” and the word “bail or bail bond” must be read as “personal bond with or without surety”. Thus, the Court suggested that the Select Committee should replace the word “shall” with “may” and replace the word “bail or bail bond” with “personal bond with or without surety”.
In the present case, a medical report dated 03-03-2018 of the appellant was received before this Court from the Director, Institute of Human Behaviour & Allied Sciences (IHBAS) stating that the appellant was diagnosed as a case of Dysthymia with Severe Depressive Episode with Lumbosacral Radiculopathy with Benzodiazepine dependence syndrome and on appropriate treatment, the appellant showed significant improvement in depressive and behavioural symptoms.
The Court considered the appellant’s circumstances, who, despite being acquitted, could not be released, as he was unable to furnish the bond in terms of Section 437-A of the CrPC. The Court appointed Jawahar Raja, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court on the interpretation of Section 437-A of the CrPC, regarding the requirement by an accused who was acquitted to execute the bail bonds with sureties anticipating further appeal in a higher Court and also, on the consequential directions that could be issued.
The respondent’s counsel submitted that Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 had been introduced in Parliament and thereafter sent to the Select Committee which were pending for further consideration. It was further submitted that the issue raised before this Court was that in case an accused was acquitted of the charges tried against him, however, on acquittal, he had to furnish personal bond with surety bond as per Section 437-A of the CrPC and in some cases, if an accused failed to furnish the surety, he was forced to continue to remain in jail despite his acquittal due to non-furnishing of surety. Therefore, vide order dated 06-03-2018, the respondent was directed to examine the vires of Section 437-A of the CrPC. The respondent’s counsel further submitted that Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was under consideration which would answer the issues raised before this Court.
The Court noted that though Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was taking care of the issue pending before this Court, it still did not resolve the issue which had been raised suo motu by this Court. The Court observed that Section 483 stated that bail was required by the accused to appear before next Appellate Court and the Court who was trying the offence or the Appellate Court, as and when such court issues notice in respect of any appeal or petition filed against the judgment of the respective court, shall “require the accused to execute bond or bail bond”. The Court observed that in this section, the word “shall” means “it is mandatory for the accused to furnish bail bond with surety”.
Thus, the Court suggested that the Select Committee should replace the word “shall” with “may” and replace the word “bail or bail bond” with “personal bond with or without surety”.
The Court opined that though Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was under consideration before the Select Committee and were already put up before the Parliament, it might take some time for the Criminal Laws to be modified, therefore, in the meanwhile, the trial courts were directed that in cases relating to Section 437-A, the word “shall” shall be read as “may” and the word “bail or bail bond” shall be read as “personal bond with or without surety”.
[Firasat Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6255, Order dated 03-10-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: Harsh Prabhakar (DHCLSC), Dhruv Chaudhary, Adeeb Ahmad, Advocates
For the Respondent: Manjeet Arya, APP; Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC; Abhinav Bhardwaj, Naveen Bhati, Karishma Rajput, Aditi Saraswat, Varsha Sharma, Parth Goyal, Sumer Kumar Sethi, Dolly Sharma, Advocates; Tushar Sannu, Standing Counsel; Jawahar Raja, Amicus Curiae
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
